Any discussion about GNOME vs. KDE is sure to end in tears. It's basically impossible to discuss which of these two Free desktop environments is better than the other, mostly because they cater to different types of people, with different needs and expectatotions. As such, Bruce Byfield decided to look at the two platforms from a different perspective: if we consider their developmental processes, which of the two is most likely to be more successful in the coming years?

"KDE applications seem to be designed to only be running on a KDE desktop. Starting any KDE application usually takes forever on my machine, because of all the KDE libs that are being loaded.

Well, that is done on purpose... not to annoy you, but the tight integration within the KDE eco system. KDE takes a bit longer to start than GNOME and according to an article that I've read a few weeks ago it also uses more RAM initially.
A result of that is that many KDE applications load quite fast -- much of the needed stuff is already in memory. There are a few exceptions (KOrganizer takes forever to load), but overall it's true. "

Well that design decision tells me that my impression is right, KDE applications are made only for the KDE desktop. That makes the applications really unsuitable for any non-KDE environment. I don't want to 10s longer for digikam to start because it loads the KDE components just by Amorak, just because I might use it. I think it's a stupid design decision as well, it limits the scope of KDE apps, and the same job is better done by something like the preload daemon.